PROFITS,JOINT COSTS AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL1

ABSTRACT. Federal guidelines for the establishment of water quality standards prohibit degradation of the properties of all or part of the nation's aquatic resources. It is probably correct that streams, lakes and aquifers should be free of toxic substances while non-poisonous deposits should be abated. However, an extreme opposing position is held by some proponents of pollution who intend to continue discharging waste materials until forced to stop. Although it would seem otherwise, the underlying problem is that polluters' points of altercation possess merit in particular instances. Accordingly, efficient abatement will require that appropriate laws be formulated in such a manner that the nature of economic reasons for the disposal of waste materials be disclosed. Moreover, the technological ability to create byproducts from these particular elements or compounds can advance only over time. This, coupled with the fact that scientists have not developed inexpensive treatment methods which are totally effective, justifies more flexible formal regulations. Excessive rigidity of standards could impose a burden on polluters that is greater than the cost to society which the damaging firm or individual is generating. On the other hand, uniform rules in some cases could be considered so lenient as to allow flagrant contamination which unduly injures downstream users.